The invention described herein relates to apparatus for the measurement of auditory reaction time of human subjects and of human athletes in particular. The invention further relates to apparatus for training human athletes to reduce their auditory reaction time in response to the auditory stimuli used to initiate athletic events.
Many athletic events are initiated by auditory stimuli. Examples of such events include most running and swimming races in which gunshots or audible tones serve as the stimuli to which the participating athletes must respond and begin execution of the event. The delay between the onset of this stimuli and the beginning of the athlete's response is commonly referred to as auditory reaction time. Since the index of performance in such races is the time to complete the event, and since this time necessarily includes the athlete's delay in reacting to the auditory stimulus, it is of obvious importance to minimize the athlete's auditory reaction time.
Auditory reaction times in competitive races can be significant. Because individual differences in auditory reaction time often exceed the differences in finishing times of top competitors, it can be said that such races are won or lost in the first few tenths of a second.
The concept of training to improve auditory reaction time is not universally accepted, however. A common misconception among coaches and sports physiologists is that auditory reaction time is hereditary or somehow otherwise ingrained in an athlete and that it cannot be significantly improved. Part of the reason for this misconception is the limitation imposed by most common training methods. Often these training methods attempt to combine drills for auditory reaction time with the initial movements of the event itself. These initial movements typically involve substantial exertion and complex coordination among specific muscle groups, as in the first few steps of a running sprint race. Improvement of auditory reaction time using said combined drills is impaired both by the diversion of concentration to said complexity and by the number of possible repetitions being limited by said exertion.
Once it is recognized that auditory reaction time can be influenced through proper training, three major obstacles prevent logical development of this aspect of an athlete's performance.
First, means must be found to isolate auditory reaction time training from the complexity and exertion referred to above; the training process should require a minimum, if any, of the specific movements from the event itself. Any device used to assist auditory reaction time training must then be capable of being removed from the contest arena so that the athlete can be isolated from background noise, anxiety, and other potential impediments to performance.
Second, means must be developed to administer an auditory stimulus and then measure and record auditory reaction time in non-specific and isolated conditions and with an accuracy consistent with the hypothesis that differences measured in tenths of milliseconds may be significant.
Third, once non-specific auditory reaction time has been improved through isolated training, means must be provided to progressively reintroduce elements of the athletic event until the improved auditory reaction time becomes an integral part of the athlete's performance in said event. Such a progression might include gradual introduction of background noise by simply changing the environment or introduction of anxiety through contests of auditory reaction time with teammates, each stage of the progression serving to develop concentration and consistency of response.
The ideal training device for auditory reaction time should then provide means for isolating the athlete from all distractions, not only from the noise and anxiety of the arena but also from the mere presence of others. The device must therefore have means for permitting the athlete to initiate the typical preparatory commands and the timing process himself while still providing means to randomize and vary the onset of the auditory stimulus. The auditory stimulus must, for proper continuity, automatically simulate the quality and sequence of the auditory stimuli characteristic of the start of the athletic event of interest. Since the movement required of the athlete must be the minimum possible, means must be provided which is capable of detecting this minimum movement. The device must have means of accurately recording reaction time. Finally, in order to permit changes in environment, the device must be truly portable. This portability implies that the movement sensing means be capable of performing its function in all progressive stages of auditory reaction time training, from quiet, isolated room to the actual performance of the event in the athletic arena.
The prior art shows many devices which attempt to measure what is perceived by each inventor as the "reaction time" of a subject. However, none of these devices are adequate for measuring the auditory reaction time of the subject, nor for training athletes to reduce their auditory reaction time in response to the auditory stimuli used to initiate athletic events.
In nearly all of these prior art devices, the stimulus provided is visual. However, for the purposes of this invention a visual stimulus is inappropriate, since the device must simulate as closely as possible the stimuli used to initiate an athletic event. Visual stimuli are not employed for most athletic events for several reasons, e.g. starting positions are awkward for viewing such stimuli, and providing equivalent viewing angles for all the athletes participating in the event is nearly impossible. Thus, the stimuli for initiating these athletic events is auditory. It can readily be seen, therefore, that any device for training an athlete to reduce his reaction time to the stimulus used to initiate an athletic event must be capable of producing an auditory stimulus. This is further emphasized by the fact that the signal pathways in the nervous system, and specifically the areas of the brain, that process auditory and visual stimuli are quite different, resulting in an athlete's response to visual stimuli being different from his response to auditory stimuli. This difference in response means that training to reduce visual reaction times (and the resulting reaction times) is not the equivalent of training to reduce auditory reaction times.
The prior art devices differ from the apparatus of the invention in several other significant ways. For example, these devices do not generally provide for the automatic sequencing of the stimuli; in fact, the stimulus is typically provided by a second party. More importantly, the means employed for detecting the subject's response to the stimulus incurs significant error in that it requires the subject to perform some task, in some cases a very complex one, which combines and renders inseparable the time required to execute this task with the time needed to first react to the stimulus with a minimum movement. When placed in the context of this invention, these prior art devices are incapable of measuring auditory reaction time (or even visual reaction time) because their timing means are not deactivated at the end of the time period which represents auditory (or visual) reaction time, but rather at the end of the time period which represents auditory (or visual) reaction time plus the time required to complete some physical task.
Such prior art devices are disclosed in, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,630,171 to Allgaier which relates to a device which purports to measure the average time required by a person to respond to an external stimulus, e.g. to react to a traffic stop signal by taking some action simulating the application of foot pressure to the brake pedal of an automobile. However, the disclosed device does not provide for an auditory stimulus, nor does it provide any means for the automatic sequencing of stimuli. Furthermore, Allgaier's device requires a specific, complex movement on the part of the user before the means timing the so-called "reaction time" is deactivated. Thus, Allgaier's device does not measure, and, in fact, is incapable of measuring only the subject's auditory reaction time.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,717,347 to Hottendorf discloses a device for testing what Hottendorf perceives as a subject's "reaction time". The device consists basically of a vertical slot or channel into which a coin is inserted. At some random time after the subject depresses a "gas pedal" the coin is dropped into the channel. A braking linkage is then depressed by the subject to catch the coin fall as rapidly as possible.
As with Allgaier's device, Hottendorf's mechanism provides only a visual stimulus to the user, and requires a specific, complex movement in response to it. Also, the manner of "timing " the subject's response, i.e. indicating how far the coin has fallen when the brake is activated, is very crude and imprecise. While Hottendorf does provide for a random delay between the time the coin is inserted into the channel and the time of its release, no means is provided for automatically sequencing a series of stimuli.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,169,592 to Hall discloses an electronic reflex game wherein one of a plurality of switches is manipulated by a player to deactivate one of a plurality of lights which are randomly actuated. As with the previously discussed patents, the stimulus employed is visual, the required response is complex, and the device tests something other than auditory reaction time. More importantly, however, the user is required to make a conscious decision as to which particular response is required depending upon the particular stimulus provided, i.e., he must not only react to the lighting of a lamp, he must also deactivate the correct lamp. Thus, the user must perceive the stimulus, decide on the particular physical response to be made, and make and complete the response before the "test" or "game" is considered complete. As is readily apparent, the addition of the decision phase of the required response adds another variable, inseparable factor to the total response time.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,698,385 to Low et al discloses a reaction tester for testing the simple and disjunctive reaction of a subject to light stimulus. While the movement required on the part of the user in response to the stimulus is not as complex as that required by the previously discussed devices, the user is required to make a decision as to which of three possible responses he should make. This decision phase is undesireable in the Low et al device for the same reason discussed with regard to the Hall device.